3rd Vuelta ITT a nice touch!

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
Having a 3rd (and Final)
Individual Time Trial
on the penultimate day of the race really helps to insure that the
eventual GC winner will have to rely on his own strength.

The TdF
ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish.
How about Puy de Dome on Friday before Paris?
All the best
Dan Gregory

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
m...

I think that the organizers did a good job designing the route to keep
the race interesting until the final day. Having a 3rd (and Final)
Individual Time Trial
on the penultimate day of the race really helps to insure that the
eventual GC winner will have to rely on his own strength. Having the
ITT consist simply, and solely, of a Category 1 climb (Maximum Grade:
17 %) up Alto de Abantos. This should be very interesting. The TdF
ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish.

It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills

The right stage for Tom Danielson, if he ever gets that far.

-Sonarrat.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message

The TdF
ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish.

It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills


They do quite often. It is usually the second of the 3 ITTs in the Tour that
is a mountain TT (when they use such a course).

In 2001: stage 11 won by Armstrong, described as a "mountain TT" it rose
1521 meters in 32 km.

In 1997: I recall that the stage 12 ITT (won by Ullrich) was over 50 km, but
finished with a climb. I could not find the course.

In 1996, the first ITT stage 8 to Val d'Isere was a mountain TT, won by
Berzin.

In 1989, the second ITT was stage 15 Gap - Orcieres-Merlette, won by Steven
Rooks


I must have forgotten a few, but you can see they do several each decade. Oh
yeah, one of the best was the 1987 ITT won by Jean-Francois Bernard. It was
stage 18 (it seemed earlier and there were 24 or 25 stages that year!) and
it was up Mt. Ventoux! He dominated that TT and everyone thought he was the
heir to the Tour (since he raced in to the yellow jersey, and his team had
won the 2 prior Tours with Hinault and Lemond, AND was thought to be "the
next Hinault").

In conclusion, I totally agree with you. Perhaps you think they last ITT
should be in the mountains, but that is a problem unless they either have a
transfer between the ITT and the stage in Paris, or they relocate the last
stage in to Paris (no way!)

Nick Burns wrote:

In 1997: I recall that the stage 12 ITT (won by Ullrich) was over 50
km, but finished with a climb. I could not find the course.

The climb was from the start. In that stage Ullrich switched the bike at
the top of the climb, to his heavy TT bike (the type that Riis used in some
bike throwing experiment). For a stage profile, see
http://www.letour.fr/tour97us/july18/Etape12.swf

Dieter

Nick Burns wrote:
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message

The TdF

ought to try having an ITT that features a Summit finish.

It would be a battle of Time Trial vs. Climbing skills



They do quite often. It is usually the second of the 3 ITTs in the Tour that
is a mountain TT (when they use such a course).

In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass.
In the flat limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75).

This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves
0.5 for width * height, so assuming an equal partition,
depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So cross-section
is roughly proportional to mass^0.75.

So there isn't as much difference as one might expect.

Dan

"Daniel Connelly" wrote in message

In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass.
In the flat limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75).

This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves
0.5 for width * height, so assuming an equal partition,
depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So
cross-section
is roughly proportional to mass^0.75.

So there isn't as much difference as one might expect.

Dan

Time gaps may not be different except when a rider blows up in a mountain
ITT there is a risk of losing even more time than blowing up in a flat ITT.

Mountain TTs look and feel different. The riders are going slower and you
can see them struggle, especially the fans on the course.

Sonarrat wrote:
"I
The right stage for Tom Danielson, if he ever gets that far.
-Sonarrat.



Maybe I'll get yelled at for this one, but how great is the evidence
that Danielson is a great climber. I hear about his performance in the
MT. Washington hill climb and yeah he broke Tylers record, but it was in
better conditions and Tyler is not exactly the best climber. Actually
Tyler is a pretty marginal climber. I mean there is no evidence that I
see that says that Danielson has anywhere near the caliber of cliber of
Mayo, Lance, Heras, Beltran, or any other spanish climber. Not as if
that is bad, but everyone talks like Danielson is some climbing phenom,
but there is really no evidence of this. He may be good and being as
good a climber as Hamilton is a good place to be, but I think we are a
bit ahead of ourselves on this one.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Robert Chung wrote:
Daniel Connelly wrote:

In the climbing limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/mass.
In the flat limit, speed is roughly dependent on power/(mass^0.75).

This is because height is roughly proportional to mass^0.5. This leaves
0.5 for width * height, so assuming an equal partition,
depth and width are each roughly proportional to mass^0.25. So
cross-section is roughly proportional to mass^0.75.

So there isn't as much difference as one might expect.



http://www.topica.com/lists/wattage/...?mid=904035539


Okay, so I neglected Cd differences, which make CdA proportional to height^0.75,
but generally independent of mass. For fixed BMI, this corresponds to CdA proportional
to mass^0.38, not 0.75. Hmmm....

The interesting thing is most work I've seen assumes fixed Cd.


BTW, nice to see you back.

Dan

Daniel Connelly wrote:

Okay, so I neglected Cd differences, which make CdA proportional to
height^0.75,
but generally independent of mass. For fixed BMI, this corresponds to
CdA proportional to mass^0.38, not 0.75. Hmmm....

Yeah. So, do you have any thoughts about how W might vary with mass?